An incorrigible Cognitive Dissident

WASPI: High Court judges on their side

The following press release was issued by Joshua Rosenberg QC yesterday. It is interesting in that, to me, it is the first sign that some truly embarrassing pressure might now be put directly upon the Minister in charge. I still doubt the time-efficacy of a legal solution, but I do think that this move is an excellent one in every way – if the sex-discrimination charge sticks.

But as always, the task is to piggy-back SPA Waspi awareness onto the back of it….

SIX HIGH COURT JUDGES ACCUSE LIZ TRUSS OF PENSIONS DISCRIMINATION AND BREACHING RULE OF LAW

Six High Court judges are taking the Lord Chancellor to an employment tribunal next week, accusing Liz Truss of unlawfully discriminating against them on the grounds of their age — which they argue is contrary to the rule of law.

In addition, one of the judges is accusing the Lord Chancellor of discriminating against her because of her sex while another, of “Asian British ethnic origin”, accuses Truss of racial discrimination.

All the claims relate to reduced benefits the judges can expect to receive under a new judicial pension scheme introduced last year.

A two-week hearing has been arranged before a tribunal judge who is not affected by the new pension arrangements. There could be further hearings before appeal judges.

It’s thought to be unprecedented for serving judges to sue the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice.

In their grounds of claim, filed with the employment tribunal, the judges say their conditions of service “reflect the established constitutional principle, dating back to (at least) the Act of Settlement 1701 that neither the legislature nor the executive should subject judges to a reduction in pay (including deferred pay such as pensions) during the term of their offices, as has occurred in the case of the claimants”.

They say this principle is “designed to protect the independence of the judiciary, a key element of the rule of law”.

All sit in the Family division of the High Court apart from Arnold (Chancery) and Singh (Queen’s Bench). Their retirement age is 70. They were appointed on the understanding that they would never return to practice as barristers.

Their grounds of claim say that each of the six was automatically enrolled in a judicial pension scheme on appointment. The new pension scheme, introduced in 2015, was “substantially less beneficial”.

Under the new scheme, serving judges are divided into three groups.

Those who were 58 years or older on 1 April 2015 retain their membership of the old scheme. None of the six fall into this category.

Those born between2 April 1957 and 1 September 1960 can continue until a closing date between 2017 and 2022. Those born after 1 December 1960 are excluded from further active membership of the old scheme but may join the new one. There are exceptions for those who have previously sat part-time.

Three of the six claimants are part of the second group and three are in the third group.

Mostyn, Newton and Moor say they are treated less favourably because of their age than those in the first group. Theis, Arnold and Singh say they are treated less favourably because of their age than judges in the other two groups.

Theis and Singh argue that female judges and those from ethnic minorities are under-represented in the first group of judges — those who were 58 or older by April 2015. They say they are therefore more likely to be adversely affected by the new pension arrangements than white male judges.

Shah Qureshi, head of employment at Bindmans LLP, told me: “We can confirm that we act for a small group of judges in relation age, race and sex discrimination issues arising out of the new judicial pension scheme. As this matter is currently awaiting judicial determination we are unable to comment further.”

23 thoughts on “WASPI: High Court judges on their side”

“That is very simple.. Like every single person I ever deal with, unless I know them and know them well I do not trust them” What a sad life you must lead.

As to my dumb statement, your excuse makes no difference to the facts. If you think that avoiding tax is the equivalent of putting bars on your house windows to protect you from thieves, you must be dumber than you think I am.

As to your comment “Trust him implicitly” what would tell you that someone was trustable, and what not?
That is very simple.. Like every single person I ever deal with, unless I know them and know them well I do not trust them. Period. And it might take 5 years or more for me trust someone.

If you are the kind of person who exploits loopholes to their own ends, aren’t you behaving as badly as the banks themselves???

That is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

If I decide to learn to protect my property from thieves and burglars and by my own means learn how to do that, and then implement that knowledge, I am PROTECTING MYSELF

What the hell has what banks do got to do with what I do to protect ME

“We understand that you begrudge the Anglo-Saxons many things but surely not their great contribution to the English language?”

I speak of the British spirit in contrast to the German in my post about Martin Luther.

“By contrast, the English were by no means as dispersed; albeit they had their traders in cities like Amsterdam, Hamburg and Danzig. Their essential spark being more individual, led them to seek the new world, and it would be a generation after Luther died that Drake would circumnavigate the world.

[…]

“Thus it was that his translations were aimed at the common man, and it was this which gave Luther’s words their power. Luther was no Tyndale, for Luther’s passion lay not in the beauty of the prose, which would endear Tyndale to the English; but in its immediacy, which would set the German soul alight. The masses could understand Luther’s words in print just as they had when hearing him.”

“No matter in Europe or anywhere the actuaries calculate fees and commissions and expenses first before you get a return and allow a very generous margin to ensure the pension company gets paid first.”

I presume these are unregulated in the countries whose legislation you understand?

And yes, pensions in the UK are forced to take on gilts – but isn’t this part of Basel 3, enforced from mainland Europe?? In Britain the legislation, such as it isn’t speaks of no need to invest in indigenous businesses: they can take British money and plough it into China…

Then you go on to state the parlous effect of poor regulation:

“my “pension” savings have a good return and that grow steadily offshore tax free because I learned how to do it.”

In other words, you are exploiting the very loopholes that make the pensions industry perform so poorly… at least for the people who invest in it.

Go figure…

As to your comment “Trust him implicitly” what would tell you that someone was trustable, and what not? If you are the kind of person who exploits loopholes to their own ends, aren’t you behaving as badly as the banks themselves???

JW re your call to the WASPIratti – All they have to do is demonstrate outside the Employment Tribunal in support of the Judges and when they win (as I suspect they will) all the WASPIratti have to do is to crowndfund their own court case and remind the Judges hearing it of their support for them and their colleagues…

PS It is only right and proper that I declare an interest as my other half is a WASPirant….

We understand that you begrudge the Anglo-Saxons many things but surely not their great contribution to the English language? In any event, your comments often provoke a veritable stream of it which will, I am sure, be gratifying to you. In fact, I am even now contemplating the necessity to wash my mouth out with soap and water.. I may perchance need to use carbolic.

Make them illegal because of what they are, nothing but Ponzi schemes”

JW is going to be cross with my ponderous comments about regulation. However, the issue remains that in the UK (and the US) there are no regulations to force pension funds to invest sensibly. Thus, as usual, it is pension schemes established in countries with a prevailing Anglo-Saxon mentality that are allowed to defraud the very people they are supposed to be serving.

Now where have I heard that before? I know! The British expenses scandal where MPs were defrauding their constituents. Okay, JW, I’ll stop with my ponderous ponderings: it’s a little too much to expect the British to change just because it’s right and proper to do so.

The European situation regarding pensions is a little different, in that there are regulations that are also enforced.

In most European countries there are laws that demand that pension funds invest in local – that is to say, national – industries. These laws have meant far more investment is available to businesses.

I am sure that there are a few Anglo-Saxon minded people who can come up with the odd exception or two. It’s the kind of thing that prove general rules.

Make them illegal because of what they are, nothing but Ponzi schemes in the final analysis and designed purely to extract value from peoples savings to feed bottom feeders.

Pay people in full and leave the decision as to how they save to the individual.

I am not speaking from no experience, but a lifetime of dealing with corporate finance and investments who knows very well the inner workings.
I have never had or ever will have a pension scheme investment.

Doing it myself and keeping it offshore has returned better than treble the rate of the best final salary scheme

More mega expensive time wasted by Public Sector debating unproductive matters. Every year its no different. From Lords to Parliament to Law, its all an ass.
Then there’s the appeal, and it starts over. Who pays? You and I.
This country can no longer afford this unproductivity and needs to be cut out.